While homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals have unique concerns, we all share deviant sexual desires and behaviors. That doesn't mean that the etiology of our deviances are the same, or that we are all variations on a common theme.

What we know about transsexuals is this: They state a desire to be and appear to be, the gender opposite of the one they have. Plastic surgery and hormone therapy can reshape the body so that it superficially appears to match the desired gender. This seems to relieve the discomfort of discordance between how they appear and how they wish to appear.

As far as I know, (and as far as I have observed in ordinary contexts) there are no biological markers for transsexuality. There are no physical features that identify transsexuals. As far as I know, the critical test for transsexuality is a fervently defended consistent narrative. However, most transsexuals seem to enjoy the changes brought about by hormone therapy (feminization or masculinization) as well as the changes that can be brought about surgically (breast/ovaries/penis/testicle removal or vagina and penis construction).

It is one thing if reasonably mature gay men decide that they really would rather be women, or a heterosexuals decide they would rather be the opposite sex. We can be doubtful and wonder if there isn't something slightly crazy about the whole thing, but at least they are adults.

I for one am not willing to accept that 4 or 5 year olds declaring that they want to be the opposite sex should be given the benefit of the doubt. To put it bluntly, I am suspicious of the parents, cooperating school authorities, and medical officials who aid or allow children to act out any sort of transsexual fantasy. It would not be the first time that incredibly naive (or stupid) theory was applied to young children. It also wouldn't be the first time that parents imposed inappropriate ideas on their children.

The thing about homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals is that they can demonstrate the validity of their preference by performing what it is that they prefer. Consistent arousal in a same sex or opposite sex situation provides physical proof (if anybody needed it). Further, there is the consistency of fantasy and arousal.

I suppose it can be said that transsexuals also demonstrate by performance the validity of their condition. What is more difficult is for a transsexual to demonstrate arousal. If they have been given hormone and surgical treatment, the body parts that show arousal may not be there any more, or may not work as they did before hormone therapy.

I am not in favor of categorizing adult transsexuals as people who only engage in very elaborate drag. The people who have embarked on transsexual transition have often had to endure too much brutal public ridicule (and a good deal worse sometimes) for it to be considered merely an affectation. This is especially true for transsexuals operating on a shoestring. Clearly they are committed.

On the other hand, people are prone to believing their own bullshit. A lot of empathetic types who want to be sensitive on the issue accept pretty much everything transsexual advocates say without too much critical questioning. More critical thinking is needed here, and not just for pro-advocacy.

I haven't read anything by Herman Hesse for a long time (decades). It seems to me that he may possibly have included some philosophical material in his novels, maybe.

Ecclesiastes is an unusual philosophical poem, given its content and location in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Potently discouraging to the person who thinks he or she knows how to play the game and win.

The One Ring was made to rule over the other rings of (lesser) power, to enslave the wearers. All of Sauron's rings were evil. (Sauron didn't make the sapphire, diamond, or ruby gem stone rings.)

The One Ring gives power according to the strength of the bearer. Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Lady Galadriel would have gained great power from the One Ring -- Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, were made invisible; Frodo could see things otherwise not visible, but being a person of no-power could not take much power from the Ring. Men were somewhere in between Frodo and Gandalf.

The One Ring is a seductive invitation to challenge Sauron for power. Alas, the Ring is also corrupting. Gandalf is powerful, and perhaps could defeat Sauron if he possessed the Ring. Perhaps the same could be said for Lady Galadriel, Elrond, or Cirdan. But no one in Middle Earth is immune to the evil inherent in the One Ring, and Gandalf, Cirdan, or Lady Galadriel would have become evil in victory.

Why was it Frodo's task to destroy the One Ring? According to Gandalf, Frodo was fated to have that task.

to jack off.

We can't do much about the problem because 1) we insist we can't do much about the problem and 2) we spend almost all our time focused on other much smaller issues. — Jake

As rational persons, we agree that nuclear weapons are a threat to all life on earth and should certainly be made as safe as they can be made. There are difficult technical problems in disposing of plutonium, but our larger and much more difficult problems are political. Politics are much more difficult than just about any other human endeavor.

Only a political party [a government] that is very securely in power can carry out the decision to do away with its nuclear weapons. It has to have secure control over its political situation and its military. And then it has to want to do away with its nuclear weapons. Governments are loathe to diminish their international leverage.

Very few governments, if any, are ever so secure that the most rational policies can be pursued, no matter what other political groups, the military, economic players, and the people in general think.

Governments face many huge problems: its climate change, nuclear disarmament, massive debt, huge displaced populations, resource depletion, clean air and water, and so on. Then there is the infinity of small problems. Politics are part of all those problems.

Dwarves Wharves! I'm a Smaug Denialist. Fortunately, I don't live in a European country where Smaug Denialism is a crime. Clearly the death of 6 million dwarves is a filthy lie sponsored by anti-dragon moral midgets. There were never 6 million dwarves to begin with, so droves of dwarves couldn't have been fried. And further, if some dwarves had been scorched to death they deserved what they got, since they had broken into the mountain home of His Most Esteemed Hotness and had swiped some inventoried items.

Smaug's death is a tragedy that will, some day, be adequately avenged.

So watch your step, Kvam!

No, I have not heard of them before. After looking at their webpage, I find it incredible that all of their branches are in developed counties. Maybe that is why they manage to do some good. I don't know if they work in the third world countries but if they do they are probably not have much success. — Sir2u

The skills required to take care of people in developed countries (like the US) are quite different than the skills needed to help people in 3rd world countries. In East Africa, or Central America, for instance, a central task is "building capacity" in communities -- teaching people how to manage sanitation problems, increasing garden crop yields, building community knowledge of health, training low-level health workers, improving education resources, and the like.

The problems of the very poor in very wealthy countries revolve around family dysfunction, drugs and alcohol, mental illness, and a poverty of public services to address them. Anyone who falls off "the social ladder" and ends up homeless on the street always has a very poor chance of re-establishing themselves without outside intervention. The distance from the gutter to the first rung of the ladder is too high for most people to leap.

I knew a delightful woman who was a music teacher who had had a good career; she fell on hard times (no alcohol, drugs, or MI -- just misfortune) and came very close to being homeless. Lutheran Social Services helped her out with housing, and this made the critical difference. She was able to put things back together after that.

The homeless drunk or homeless uncared for mental patient has far greater need than the music teacher. There are a whole group of agencies: Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Salvation Army, county hospitals, social welfare agencies, and the like who provide assistance to people in severe need. There are also small groups from all sorts of backgrounds that do the same thing on a smaller scale.

Agreed. What kind of society would that look like, politically? — Posty McPostface

The United States has had several episodes where it legislated and funded programs to reduce raw need. The Medicare and Medicaid programs are two such programs, both passed in the mid-1960s. Food Stamps (not the official name any more) is another. Disability, social security, unemployment, and general and specific welfare programs (like the discontinued Aid For Dependent Children - AFDC) all did that. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has built millions of apartments across the country to house the elderly and disabled.

Unfortunately, the US has a mediocre record of maintaining these programs and keeping them fully funded.

The European social democratic model is a better example of what a society looks like that assumes the responsibility of caring for people. Taxes are high, and the social programs are generous and both general and focussed. For instance, France allocates funds to provide prenatal care to pregnant women. This is as much as a social investment in healthy children as it is a personal help.

Most western European governments do a pretty good job of assuring a minimum level of security, cradle to grave. Perfect? No. Better? Yes.

The critical difference between societies that provide social security (as a generalized condition, not as a program) collect far more in taxes from individuals and corporations than the United States does. My understanding is that most countries do a better job of distributing benefits to citizens evenly across the board. Southern US states generally are niggardly and pay out benefits well below the average of Northern states.

These societies do "look different" because they have significantly different histories. Social programs in the US are never going to resemble those in Sweden.

The US has the continued problem of highly disproportionate taxation benefit. One of the reasons the 1% of US citizens are so rich is tax law. Tax law can and should be changed, but it takes a strong popular liberal commitment and liberal control of congress and the white house to achieve it.

that sounded pretty brutal. — Aleksander Kvam

Life is hard.

Are you familiar with the Catholic Worker Movement? The woman who started it, Dorothy Day, was first a socialist journalist in New York; her daughter, Tamara, was born out of wedlock. She never married. She eventually became a devote Catholic, but had a lot of conflict with the church. Peter Maurin, her mentor and co-founder, was a very off-beat character.

Catholic Workers is around...90 years old. They're old enough to have had some significant failures. In general though, they aren't part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and they attract Catholic and non-catholic volunteers.

There are various people doing various kinds of legitimate good work who can use a donation.

Not everyone is dishonest, but not everyone has a valid reason to be asking for money from strangers. — Sir2u

Give generously when you can and when, by one's best judgement, the gift will be well used. (When I give a man on the street a dollar, I assume there is a good chance he will buy beer and not invest it in growth stock. Were I in his shoes, I'd buy beer for sure.)

deleted: catholic worker website didn't work

What would be more immoral? Having an aging man dressing up as a clown to tell jokes on a bus and then ask for a few coins or giving the old timer a few coins while he sits by the road begging? — Sir2u

The old timer sitting in the dirt begging was previously a clown subjecting innocent people to the horrors of incompetent clowning. He was beaten up and thrown off the bus by the indignant and by no means indigent suburbanite riders. It was awful watching the women stomp on him with their spike heels.

As individuals, do we really have a moral obligation towards the rest of humanity? — Sir2u

No, we don't because 7.4 billion people is a bit much to take on. Besides, "the rest of humanity" is a non-group made up of non-people. Maybe we have an obligation to the unfortunate people who live on the north side of town, or maybe not -- but at least the 700 people who live up there are numerable and knowable. We can decide whether their situation is deserving or not: Maybe they are all liars, thieves, knaves, scoundrels, crooks, and pimps and deserved to be arrested en masse. Or, maybe their situation deserves assistance -- a tornado wrecked their part of town (and, coincidentally, they are no more dishonest than anybody else).

Even if this means voting for a socialist who wants to introduce something like Universal Basic Income, or some other redistribution scheme of politics? — Posty McPostface

Yes, because Universal Basic Income is... universal -- for everybody. No group is being favored. Besides the UBI isn't a benefit program for unfortunates. It's a macro-economic plan to deal with the consequences of structural economic change.

My sphere of interest is larger than myself, my relatives, and my friends. I have no objection to giving a limited amount of money to persons in this "enlarged sphere". What I object to is other people strenuously insisting that I add their favored group to my list of deserving beneficiaries.

There are hundred of groups who are poor, suffering, oppressed, hungry, thirsty, stateless, homeless, etc. I can't help them all and I can't tell who won the aristocracy of suffering award. Guatemalans? Mexicans? Burmese minorities? Somali? Syrians? Nigerians? Laotians?

How should I decide, Posty, who is most deserving, or if any of the candidates are deserving?

It isn't that anybody here needs a manual; some people need permission and encouragement. I never needed permission; you never needed encouragement; some people do.

If even the most intelligent and educated people can not use philosophy to focus on the survival of human civilization, what good is it — Jake

We post WWII baby boomers grew up during the tension of the Cold War and the anxiety about nuclear war. Speaking for myself, I remain worried about nuclear weapons and nuclear waste. Since perestroika and glasnost, the threat of imminent use of nuclear weapons has been decreased -- but not eliminated. I am now less immediately worried about Russian or American missiles. I am more worried about India's and Pakistan's nuclear weapons, or North Korea's and Israel's, or Iran's (future) nuclear bombs. Once used, these smaller arsenals could easily result in a much wider nuclear catastrophe.

I haven't stopped worrying about nuclear weapons, but since the height of the cold war, a new threat has appeared: Global Climate Change (aka global warming). The difference between nuclear war and climate change is that the latter is happening, and the former has not (so far). Worse, it appears that global warming will continue to worsen into the future--no matter what.

Giving roughly 7.4 billion people credit, I don't think people are indifferent to either nuclear weapons or global warming. It is the case, however, that no individual, no small group, no large group, no major political party that is not very securely in power can do much about either problem. WHY?

The reason why even large political parties not very securely in power are unable to act is that the essential technologies of nuclear weapons and (for global warming) energy production and use are under the control of elite groups: either elite military control (for nuclear) or elite economic control (for energy). A rather small group (let's use a generous estimate of 1,000,000 people) control critical infrastructure. These 1 million people are very powerful military and economic players. When less than a dozen people have as much wealth as about 3.2 billion people (according to OXFAM-UK), it should be clear that even large political parties are out-matched.

The problem is that philosophy appears to be inadequate for addressing issues of such great scale. Thus, I'm proposing that philosophy is basically a clever parlor game which some folks are lucky enough to get paid to play. — Jake

I would say philosophy is capable of "addressing issues of great scale" but is unable to conjure up magical solutions which can overcome mundane realities. If one is sufficiently insulated from harsh realities, anything can be turned into a parlor game.

Maybe I am the only one who feels this way.

Even with just myself, I start thinking right when I should be in ultimate pleasure and bam, it's like my Mother in law walked in the house. And then it's over, that moment is gone. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You are not the only one.

Contrary to the cliché, lots of people are not sexually liberated. Millions of people have soaked up very negative scripts about sex, and many of the scripts end up condemning us for being sexual at all, let alone being even slightly eager for sex. It takes time and effort to overcome the negative attitudes about sex, sexuality, pleasure, desire, all that. The 1960s were exciting times for some, mostly young, people. But the 1960s (and decades following) kept up the tradition of characterizing sex as either chaste and procreative (a la Agustino) or degenerate.

Definitely stop thinking about your mother in law.

BTW, the champaign and truffle feature is not offered at the price point that gets one salad bars. You'll have to upgrade a couple of notches for that.

I am assuming you wish to have more orgasms. Not everybody does -- Garthbarracuda, for one, says he has little interest -- low libido, etc.

Masturbation requires that one pay attention -- it's like Yoga that way. One has to focus on sexual feelings, thoughts, images, actions. There seem to be 3 main methods of maintaining focus:

1. Men frequently use porn to assist in focusing on the sexual goal. Some women do too, I have heard. What porn does is provide an arousing object of interest that is sufficiently captivating to overcome the distractions of mental traffic. (In other words, it's a turn on.) If porn doesn't turn you on, then don't bother with it.

2. If porn isn't available there is fantasy. Fantasy was the main thing before the internet came along and provided the pornocopia. I haven't done a survey, but some men with whom I have discussed this report that at any one time they had a favorite fantasy, which they used over and over. Old fantasies were discarded and new ones were created from time to time. Fantasy also requires some diligence: you have to imagine scenarios that turn you on, and (I think) they need to be simple enough to enjoy without much plot management. It's your fantasy; you never have to tell anybody what it is.

3. A third approach is mechanical assistance. Many people like vibrators. In fact the vibrator was invented as a medical sexual tool. (This was in the early days of wide-spread electrical distribution.) Doctors offered vibrator treatment for tension. It was quite popular. It can be used in conjunction with 1 and 2.

4. Some people prefer silence; others prefer a soundtrack. Whatever works to suppress mind-wandering. Touching one's self is, obviously, a necessary part. Some people like a bed, some a hot bath, some a car parked in a private spot, and so on.

Yoga techniques can help. Steady, slow pauseless breathing can help one center. So can progressive relaxation. (There's nothing very complicated about either of these.)

I am eagerly awaiting the fall apple harvest. I have nothing more to say about apples.

Thank you for providing this clarification. Clarity and precision are good things. Next time I'll keep a stop watch handy so I can make more accurate observations. "Oh god, oh..." CLICK tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick CLICK gush, squirt, drip. "Hey, he's right -- 2.1 seconds between orgasm and ejaculation. Let's do this 3 more times to make sure we have it right. Your turn."

I also happen to have a low libido that makes me basically asexual. I have never had sex nor do I particularly have the need or desire to. I believe I see sex in a different way than most people do and this may be influenced by my lack of sex drive. — darthbarracuda

So you have a low libido, have never had sex, and feel asexual. I sort of feel that way myself, now that I am fairly old. You should live your life the way you see fit. Since you have not, and maybe will not experience sex in the manner that most people do, you might want to be cautious about which interpretation of sex you adopt.

Sex as mere biology (though nothing is "mere", per Feynman) limits our understanding of sexuality as much as presuming sex to be a patriarchal subordination of women or a capitalist transaction or thinking that men defile women during sex.

The ways we are embodied and the way we experience the world are closely tied up together. It is through our body (including sex) that we experience the world and it is within the body that we build our being. If we can't comfortably exist as the body we are, we can't comfortably exist in the world [except by maintaining very carefully policed non-porous boundaries between the self and the world].

Sex seems clumsy, awkward and particularly unsanitary. — darthbarracuda

Life is unsanitary. We are surrounded by an ocean of biological particles, viruses, bacteria, pollen, parasites, dirt, odors, and so on. We inhale and exhale, eat and excrete all sorts of creatures and biological by-products. We are constantly shedding skin; there is an army of skin-mites in your carpet, sheets, mattress, and pillows eating and digesting your skin. We lose our skin about 12 times a year. The skin mites and other scavengers that live with you are grateful for your flaking hide. There are more single celled creatures inside of and on us (and you) than there are bodily cells. Gut bacteria in the trillions aren't just there, they are absolutely essential. Animals evolved together with gut bacteria. We can not do without them.

Young children who are not exposed to enough bacteria, viruses, pollen, dirt, and so forth tend to get sick more often and have very strong allergic reactions and asthma because they missed getting dirty enough. Once you are grown up, playing in the dirt ceases to be beneficial to the immune system.

Sometimes sex is clumsy and awkward. How else can it be in a small car, in a tree, in a public washroom, in the snow, in the sand, in the choir loft, etc. Older, wiser, and better funded people arrange for a bed, bath, and beyond -- like privacy, the right temperature, food and drink, etc.

So to say "that a woman never does" is almost correct for me as I can count how many times in my life that I have truly achieved orgasm. As a man, can you count how many times you have achieved orgasm?

And since we are on the subject: Is it necessary for a man to ejaculate to have an orgasm? Or do men have other forms of orgasm? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Since the definition of the male orgasm is to ejaculate, yes. However, if men take the time, the intense pleasure leading up to ejaculation can be extended and repeated a number of times. The vernacular term is "edging" -- one approaches, then backs away from ejaculation. In sex therapy it's called "sensate focus".

How does one interrupt what seems like inevitable ejaculation? With a sharp, quick squeeze of the head of the penis. The Body Electric school in Oakland, CA has instructional materials on the subject. They also have live! programs for gay and straight men and women.

You didn't say how low your orgasm count was. You don't have anything against you masturbating, do you? There's that relevant old joke, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice." Women have a right to orgasm (it was a subsection of the failed Equal Rights Amendment, a few decades back. "Women can have as many orgasms as they like.") The subsection was added to quell the likelihood of female rioting: sexually satisfied women are much less likely to riot in the streets.

You certainly don't have to depend on someone else providing you with orgasms.

This is real philosophy, not self help--just in case anybody was wondering.

The viewpoints you expressed are "not even wrong" but I will join the sensible mob in excoriating your post.

I think heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal subordination of women. And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties - the buyer and the seller. — darthbarracuda

Heterosexuality = patriarchal subordination is a plank in the platform of constructionism. The equivalence supposes that natural processes operating over many, many millions of years have nothing to do with us. The hateful feminists who spout this nonsense think heterosexuality is a plot hatched in the halls of wicked patriarchal capitalist, imperialist, sexist, racist males.

The woman gives, the man takes. The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does. — darthbarracuda

More biological blindness. I have overheard women having orgasms with male partners on a number of occasions. So we know that competent men can bring their partners to orgasm--maybe not in 5 minutes.

So then what is it about sex that makes consent so important?

Sex is a biological, personal, and social act. People obtain consent for the same reason that "consent" of a sort is involved in inviting someone to dinner, inviting someone to dance, inviting someone to kill a couple bottles of good wine, go for a walk in the woods, or go swimming together. Pleasurable activities are best when people are enthusiastically engaged. Consenting allows both partners to set up the situation for the best possible results.

It is because (this sort of?) sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating. — darthbarracuda

What you are describing is really bad sex. Rape maybe. It reminds me of feminists in the 1970s who claimed "An erection is tantamount to rape." Talk about having hangups.

My perspective on consent in sex is this: if you feel the need to ask for consent, then there is something questionable about what you wish to do (to the other person). — darthbarracuda

I guess if I invite you to dinner you would assume I am planning on poisoning you. If I ask you to go for a walk in the woods, I must be planning on murdering you there.

Now, darthbarracuda dear, you know damn well that your denatured feminist sexual advisors consider sex without consent to be rape. So if you don't ask it's rape and if you do ask it must be some disgusting filthy humiliating sex, like maybe a three way with the Kentucky Derby winner. Hey, Justify is a very nice horse -- Triple Crown winner. Are your credentials as good as his?

Bataille has argued that the erotic is inherently about defilement. — darthbarracuda

You talking about Georges Bataille 1897–1962? The intellectual, pornographer, qualified-librarian, attempted founder of a secret society devoted to human sacrifice--that one? Are you sure you read him correctly? The one who said "This is not to say when two people “rut like animals” they are not being erotic, but that such apparently bestial abandon is significant because of what it means for the minds of the people involved." That one?

the woman has perfect, clean beauty that is defiled by the man. — darthbarracuda

unadulterated retro bullshit.

We can not know that god exists, and we can not know that god does not exist. There are good cultural and psychological reasons for believing in god, and for not believing in god. The problem the individual has is resolving the conflict between logic and faith. Your friend isn't a moron for thinking belief in god, atheism, and agnosticism are incompatible. And you are not a moron for finding some way to cover over incompatibility.

Religion has value whether god exists or not, and if you find some use for religious teaching--even though you don't believe in god--well and good.

I was raised as a Christian (nothing I can do about that) but I don't believe that god exists. It's a major contradiction in my life to which there doesn't seem to be a neat solution. I have found that people are good, bad, and indifferent without respect to what they believe about god.

Is professional academic philosophy basically just a scam? — Jake

Is this what you were really interested in all along? Fine by me if it was.

A word in defense of Philosophy, English Literature, et al: One of the essential functions in society is "reproducing society". Were there no philosophy departments--even as elitist rackets--the knowledge of philosophy would eventually disappear. The same goes for everything that goes on in education K through PhD: the tools and content of civilization, culture, and society have to be reproduced or they will eventually be lost.

So it is around the world, a large number of people are engaged in maintaining and reproducing society.

Look at what happened over a few hundred years of the collapsing Roman Empire: piece by piece chunks of social knowledge were lost. Of course, people made do without it. Life for the ordinary peasant didn't change very much (it was never great to begin with) but for the medieval elite, cultural resources were greatly reduced.

Later on, in the Renaissance, a major effort was undertaken to recover as much classical knowledge and culture as could be recovered. Alas, only a fraction could be brought back. We have rebuilt complex knowledge and culture, but it will not last without continual maintenance.

Your plumping for similar objects in a group being different. Some of us plump for the similarity of differing objects in a group. You find two green apples to have vast differences. I'd say they are alike (even if one can, if one must, tell one from the other). You're probably the type that thinks the each human is completely unique and dissimilar. Like a snowflake. Humbug, I say. People are all alike. Apples (with apples) and Homo sapiens share so much in common. Sure, we have -- like apples -- differences which become apparent on close examination. But it is our great similarity that enables us to understand each other.

We have something in common but opposite -- you're close to Antarctica; we get regular doses of arctic air in the winter, the frosty "Alberta clippers".

I'm not fond of the anti-fascists; not that makes me fond of fascists, either. They are both unfriendly rigid doctrinaire authoritarians A plague on both their houses.

So I take it you find in Corbyn an unfriendly rigid doctrinaire type?

What, in a smallish nutshell, do you have against Corbyn? So many in the UK seem to dislike him with uncharacteristic British passion.

Schmucks? Now that you're a party member you're using Yiddish expressions? You must be a dog-whistling Zionist. (joke)

Over in the Desire and a New Fascism thread Unenlightened is plumping for Palestine. He posted a 4 part 100% objective TV program from Al Jazeera on Israel's nefarious activities coordinating anti-Palestinian activities in the UK.

A schmuck is a penis. There are, indeed, a lot of pricks on the Internet.

POLL: Are you politically alienated? — 0 thru 9

Is the Pope Catholic?

I voted for "mostly". I was raised to believe politics matter, and in fact it does. Those who wield political power get what they want, and those who have no political power to wield get fucked over by those who do. I voted for "mostly" because I am infested with vestiges of hope that The People will, in the sweet by and by, arise from passivity and at least TRY to take back their share of the country (like, all of it).

Political alienation and hopelessness is not a good thing. People who are really alienated and hopeless are very unlikely to act in their own interests in a strategically effective way. I voted for "mostly" because something may, might, and could possibly happen that would cause renewed interest.

First, very strange behavior that. And slippery too -- saliva running all over a nice gun, such a waste. "Happiness is a warm gun" somebody sang, 1968.

We are not concerned about whether you pull the trigger or not, but where and when. Your demise may cause a highly inconvenient mess if you choose a location like the cafe in Bloomingdales as the site of your demise. Somebody will have to clean up the brains, bones, blood... probably at public expense. And if you elect your demise during the lunch rush, you'll spoil The People's enjoyment of the daily special.

There are easier ways, are there not, to demonstrate Camus adage, “There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide." You could, for instance, just do a poll on the Philosophy Forum: "Should I kill myself today? Yes / No". The collective wisdom of your steamed colleagues can be relied upon, can they not?

For the purposes of this thread, I might also point out that IF you are going to kill yourself, you could at least take several objectionable persons with you -- I have a little list of people, none of whom would be missed.

The absurdity of your proposal suggests that you may not be rational. Some Thorazine would probably be helpful.

There have been enough conspiracies for us to take plots at least somewhat seriously. But the conspiracy has to make some sort of sense.

The thing about 9/11 is that it WAS a conspiracy, and the conspiracy was successful. Occam's razor directs us toward the bin Laden directed plot, rather than those devious devils' plot in Washington.

Remember, this was the second attack on the World Trade Towers--the first being in 1993. In that attack, the intent was to fell the north tower into the south tower. Some engineers speculated that it could have worked. (They didn't wish to provide details on how to do it better.) The conspirators killed 6 people and injured over 1000. Had it worked, many thousands would likely have died. Al Qaeda provided training for this attack. The World Trade Center was selected as a representative of US economic power.

The attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK was also a successful conspiracy--planned by Americans against Americans in America. It was in retaliation for the attack on an oddball bunch of Americans in the Branch Davidian facility in Waco, TX in April of 1993. Whether the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms (a branch of the US Treasury) was conspiring to bring about what happened, don't know. Why that particular federal building was blown up, don't know.

There have been other conspiracies to do various (usually violent) deeds. In 1970 a small group blew up Stirling Hall at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. The Army had a research center in the building, and the explosion was a protest against the War in Vietnam. The conspirators had tried to blow up the building when no one was there, but unfortunately 1 graduate student was there and was killed. He didn't have anything to do with the Army research program.

Imagine living in England, what with all the IRA bombs that were blown up there during the 1970s - 90s.
Another example of successful conspiracies.

I'm not sure the US Intelligence Agencies are capable of thinking up, planning, and pulling off a devilishly ingenious dastardly conspiracy. We have too many means to crush which ever group of bastards are annoying us. The annoying bastards, on the other hand, have to work within extremely limited means -- they have to be fiendishly clever. And they have been.

Stereotyping isn't an invention of social media. It isn't new. It's a normal cognitive routine of characterizing, sorting and grouping. Whether stereotyping individuals and groups is a problem depends on how one goes about it. If one accounts for many features and has many categories into which individuals can be sorted, it isn't problematic. Focusing on 2 or 3 features and assigning individuals to 2 or 3 bins will result in crude distortion.

Another problem of stereotyping is that we do it to ourselves as well as to others. When we desire to be known as members of a particular group we will display stereotypes of that group. Clothing can signal to others that "we have achieved material success" (buy it at Brooks Brothers) or that we are hip, cool, and cutting edge. One probably wouldn't show up at an antifa rally in a bikini.

I consider members of our species to be more alike than different. True, we all have many individual features, but our individual features fall into categories. If this were not the case, it would be very difficult to make sense of each other.

Recognizably different groups in society, groups which can be accurately stereotyped, also have conflicting goals. A group with an established and comfortable dominance in a given neighborhood will probably object to a recognizably different group attempting to move into their turf. The problem in this case isn't the stereotypes both groups use, but their conflicting goals. Conflicting goals may or may not be resolvable.

Of course they work in tandem, but they are not equally yoked. "Handmaid" doesn't mean slave; it means "something whose essential function is to serve or assist". Why should reason serve passion (the emotions) and not emotion serve reason? First, reason develops later than 'passion' or emotion. The basic emotions are present at birth; reason will follow, but not for a while. Emotions rule the roost first and get a firm grip.

Emotion evolved long ago for purposes of survival. Reason evolved later, and in more specific ways. Passion is always hotter than reason, and can mobilize action on shorter notice. It is easier for a nation to go to ruinous war on waves of passion than it is for a nation to reform its healthcare financing system through focused reason. (At least in this country financial reform has so far proved impossible.)

Animals who have some reason as well as emotion can learn to over-ride emotional urges. When you train a dog to sit still while you stack snacks on its nose and to hold off until it receives a signal, the dog is learning to over-ride its emotions--otherwise it would toss the snack off its nose instantly. Service dogs have to override many emotions and natural urges when 'on duty'. Children must also learn to over-ride their emotional urges as part of their socialization. Parents work very hard to prevent their child's tantrums from getting results.

Hot emotions can swamp reason. Emotions can lead reason to opt rationally for what emotion wants. That's why one can end up buying a more expensive car (or some other object) than one intended: During the time of new car examination in the showroom, one's emotions may decide which model is really good, and the pre-frontal cortex finds itself thinking of reasons why the more expensive car was, indeed, actually a better deal.

Anyone can end up buying more car than they intended, but anyone can go through the Consumer's Report approach and make the decision before you leave the house, checkbook in hand. Care is needed for reason to override emotion.

Reason, on the other hand, can keep emotions under control by conducting the individual's affairs in a manner that minimizes sturm and drang. Keeping one's emotions happy is a way of keeping them under control. This is where therapy comes into play: how does one manage one's life so that one's emotions are reasonably contented?

That emotions have a natural edge is fortunate. That we can love others, and find in others objects of intense love, adoration, attachment, lust, and they the same in us, contributes much to a life worth living. That we can feel (by approximation) other's joys and sorrows is what makes it possible for us to want to help others.

We need more news like this: "Goats descend on suburban lawns in Boise, Idaho and eat everything".

It turns out the goats were employees of a goatish temporary agency that rents its employees out to rid areas of noxious weeds which goats like. No conspiracies; no right-wing agenda; no PC terrorism; nothing to upset ecologists... Just peaceful chewing on rose bushes, hostas, petunias, grass... As we temporary employees tend to do, the goats wandered off the assigned worksite...

I don't like hitching up the 'psychofascism of everyday life" to politics.

Hitler and Mussolini were, in many ways, unsuccessful in exploiting the masses. Hitler, for instance, usually received no more than the 30%-40% of the popular vote. The highest percentage he received, about 51%, was in Schlesweig Holstein. Agricultural prices there were collapsing because production in Argentina, USA, and Australia was swamping the market. He promised -- didn't deliver -- hefty price supports.

Neither Hitler nor Mussolini were swept into power by popular landslides. Both fascist parties had to use trickery, deceit, manipulation, etc. to win. It is true that the masses had desires--for work, income, and a reasonably decent life. The Nazis did manage to deliver on a reasonable level of prosperity (at least until WWII started). And, of course, the fascists also managed to bring in a reasonable number of middle class and wealthy people aboard too. (The workers and the industrialists obviously wouldn't have had the same desires.

It seems to me there is fairly good support for the idea that there is an "authoritarian personality" and Germany, at least, seems to have successfully cultivated the type in their school, religious, and military institutions well before Hitler came along. Germany isn't alone, of course. One runs into authoritarian personalities frequently.

The Nazis were also quite good at cheap theatrics. The mass rallies in Nuremberg and elsewhere were very much staged events, and admission was charged (gate receipts were an important source of party income before they were able to tape into state coffers). What's not to like about an exciting torchlight rally with music, flags, marching, quasi-military rigamarole, and political haranguing? Some people live for that stuff.

American fascists did a reasonably good job of it too -- white robes and hoods, marching around in circles out in the woods, burning torches, burning crosses, some half-baked rigamarole, and a lynching every now and then.